Hearings to examine the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, focusing on restoring clarity, certainty, and predictability to the United States patent system.

Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks

2025-10-08

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

This hearing, held by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, focuses on patent eligibility reform and the proposed Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PARA) of 2025. Witnesses including former USPTO directors, life sciences experts, and legal professionals argue that current patent eligibility standards—shaped by Supreme Court decisions like Alice and Mayo—are overly narrow, unpredictable, and have led to reduced investment in critical areas like biotechnology and artificial intelligence. They contend that the current legal framework has created a hostile environment for innovation, with foreign governments like China gaining advantages by expanding patent eligibility. The hearing emphasizes that the U.S. must act to restore stability and clarity in patent law, ensuring that inventions in high-impact fields such as medical diagnostics and AI can be protected without stifling innovation. Key participants highlight the real-world impacts of uncertainty, including decreased R&D investment, a shift of innovation to foreign markets, and the abandonment of research due to litigation risks. The hearing concludes with strong bipartisan support for PARA, which seeks to define clear, specific exclusions for patent eligibility while preserving the role of the Patent Act’s other sections—such as novelty and non-obviousness—to filter out weak or invalid claims. The subcommittee concludes with a commitment to move toward a markup of the bill, aiming to strengthen U.S. leadership in global innovation.

Participants

Transcript

This hearing will come to order. Just for housekeeping, before I do my opening statement, we are gonna have votes beginning at, I believe, somewhere between now and 2.45. I've instructed the cloakroom, unless my vote is needed, to break a tie that I don't intend to recess the hearing so we'll charge through but if I have to leave it is in fact because I need to break a tie. Don't anticipate that and I know that you all put a lot of work into this preparation and I want to show you the utmost respect of not having your testimony in these discussions to be interrupted. Today we discuss a topic that I think in my time here has been often confused and mischaracterized and I actually believe it's one of the most important issues facing our country today, I should say, in the patent community. It's the topic of patent eligibility reform. The long overdue need for patent eligibility reform is one that, if left unaddressed, will cede America's, I believe, cede America's well-earned title of the global innovation leader and global intellectual property rights leader to other communities. Can't let that happen. And under my watch, which incidentally is over the next 452 days, it will be one of my top priorities in my office. The sad part about the potential loss of our, what I believe, championship status in the IP and intellectual property protection community is foreign governments like the CCP are actively working to undermine our IP system. And they're attempting to overtake America's position as the global IP leader, as I said before. There are those in this country who, rather than fix the problem, would like to take advantage of ambiguity or the comfort with the status quo that's been created because of the confusing and I think sometimes conflicting outcomes in our courts.

Now, we have four relatively recent Supreme Court decisions that have caused patent eligibility law in the U.S. to be confused, constricted, and unclear. That's what we're trying to fix here, folks. It's led to inconsistent lower-cart decisions, uncertainty in innovation, uncertainty in investment communities, and unpredictable business outcomes, all things that, if you know me, I don't like. Research has confirmed that under the expanded judicial exceptions, U.S. inventors are unable to obtain patents in areas where economic peers offer protections. This is particularly concerning in the economically critical areas of biotechnology and computer implemented invention where patent restrictions decrease investment and send capital overseas. As of 2021, all 12 then sitting judges of the US Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit Court lamented the state of the current law. I've always said that we should not rush to legislate and that we should let courts do their job until they don't. And that's where we are now. Case in point, in 2021, I worked with former USPTO Director David Kapos, who we'll hear from today, and retired Judge Paul Michel to file an amicus brief in the American Axle case. I was disappointed to see the Supreme Court decline the opportunity to offer clarity on patent eligibility. So we still have a lot of work ahead of us. And while former USPTO Director Iancu, Andre Iancu, who also we'll hear from today, made great strides with the 2019 PEG, the Revised Patent Eligibility Matter Eligibility Guidance, it changed how patent examiners review patents, but the guidance is not binding on the courts, and when patents are challenged in litigation, the guidance lacks the force and effect of law.

That's why I've introduced the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025, or PARA, along with Senator Coons. Earlier this year, I was happy to see Senators Blackburn and Senators Hirono join as co-sponsors. PARA preserves the first part of the current eligibility statute, but it eliminates an overly broad set of three current judicial exceptions, replacing them with five specific defined statutory exclusions. By eliminating and replacing the current judicial exceptions, PARA provides predictable patent eligibility for important computer-implemented technology developments and medical advances, creating a solid background for America's innovation future. It's important to note that patent eligibility and patentability are often conflated. This is a tool that opponents to patent eligibility reform I think often leverage to sow confusion and paint the narrative that expanding patent eligibility will equate to rampant and uncontrolled patentability. I disagree. Section 101 was not intended to function as a gatekeeper to keep out ineligible patent claims. Patent eligibility is simply one step in the process of determining patentability. Should a patent examiner find a claimed invention fails to meet one or more of the requirements outlined under Sections 101, 102, 103, and 112, a patent will not be issued. Simply meeting the requirements of Section 101 does not mean that a patent will be granted. I will remain a champion for strong, reliable, and predictable intellectual property rights and for inventors and creators, large and small. And as part of that promise, I will not stop shining spotlight on the need for patent eligibility reform. I'm also heartened to say that our current USPTO director, John, our current USPTO director, John Squires, shares this understanding and that we need patent eligibility reform and that the status quo is not sufficient.

This is no more evidence than by his ceremonial signing of two patents last month on technology generally considered not to be eligible under Section 101. I hope that this is our last IP subcommittee hearing on this topic and that we will soon move to PARA and a markup in this Congress. I will be entering my opening, well, I've already stated all my opening comments. I want to give Adam, Senator Schiff, an opportunity to make opening comments, and then we'll also hear from Senator Coons. Senator Schiff. Chairman Tillis, thank you for bringing us together for this important hearing on patent eligibility. As I do not have a Tillis rule, and as I am a freshman, I will be running off to vote. And as I have a resolution that may come up this afternoon, depending on where Senator Tillis is on that resolution, I may ask you to keep him here, especially if he is the decisive vote. The right to patent inventions is enshrined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.